Love v. KSSF Enterprises LTD

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 18, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-08535
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 SAMUEL LOVE, Case No. 20-cv-08535-LB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS

14 KSSF ENTERPRISES LTD, et al., Re: ECF No. 21 15 Defendants. 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Samuel Love is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. In October 2020, he 19 visited the W Hotel’s website to plan a trip to San Francisco. He contends that hotel’s website did 20 not give him sufficient information to determine whether the hotel and its rooms were accessible 21 to him, in violation of a rule that requires public accommodations (like the W Hotel) to describe 22 accessible features in their reservations systems. 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e). He thus claims violations 23 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and California’s Unruh Civil 24 Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.1 The defendants — the W Hotel and its owner KSSF — moved 25 to dismiss on the ground that their website exceeds the legal requirements. The court grants the 26 27 1 Am. Compl. – ECF No. 18. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint 1 motion because the plaintiff has not plausibly pleaded an ADA violation. Because it dismisses the 2 federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. 3 4 STATEMENT 5 Mr. Love challenges the sufficiency of information about accessible hotel features on the W 6 Hotel’s reservation website.2 The complaint describes the website’s description of the hotel 7 features, and the court also considers the actual descriptions on the websites.3 The complaint 8 describes the website’s disclosures about guest-room accessibility: 9  Accessible guest rooms with 32” wide doorways  Accessible route from public entrance to accessible guest rooms 10  Alarm clock telephone ringers 11  Bathroom grab bars 12  Bathtub grab bars 13  Bathtub seat 14  Deadbolt locks, lowered  Door night guards, lowered 15  Doors with lever handles 16  Electrical outlets, lowered 17  Flashing door knockers 18  Hearing accessible rooms and/or kits 19  Roll-in shower  Shower wand, adjustable 20  TTY/TTD available 21  TV with close-captioning 22 23 24 2 Id. (¶ 14). 3 Id. at 4–5 (¶¶ 17–19); Website Screenshots, Ex. 1 to Req. for Judicial Notice (RJN) – ECF No. 21-2 25 at 4–6. The court takes judicial notice of the websites, the plaintiff’s other lawsuits, and court documents. RJN – ECF No. 21-2; Suppl. RJN – ECF No. 24-1. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Perkins v. 26 LinkedIn Crop., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1204 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“Proper subjects of judicial notice when ruling on a motion to dismiss include . . . court documents already in the public record and documents 27 filed in other courts[,] and publicly accessible websites”). The plaintiff does not object to the court’s taking judicial notice. Opp’n – ECF No. 23 at 19. The court also can consider the websites under the  Toilet seat at wheelchair height 1  Transfer shower 2  Vanities, accessible 3  Viewports, lowered4 4 The website provides the following additional information. It lists the accessible features 5 recited in the complaint, and it allows users to search for rooms and identify features such as 6 whether the rooms are “mobility accessible,” have roll-in showers or tubs, and have hearing- 7 impaired features such as visual alarms and notifications. It has photos of a typical accessible 8 bathtub or roll-in shower.5 It provides a mechanism to obtain more information: “[f]or more 9 information about the physical features of our accessible rooms, common areas, or special services 10 relating to a specific disability, please call +1 415-777-5300.”6 11 Mr. Love claims violations of the ADA and the Unruh Act as a result of the defendants’ alleged 12 failure to ensure a reservation system that sufficiently identifies accessible features in the hotel and 13 guest rooms.7 The ADA claim establishes the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 14 1331. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that they provided all legally 15 required information.8 The court held a hearing on March 18, 2021. The parties consented to 16 magistrate jurisdiction.9 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 19 entitled to relief” to give the defendant “fair notice” of what the claims are and the grounds upon 20 which they rest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A 21 complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the 22 grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 23

24 4 Am. Compl. – ECF No. 18 at 6 (¶ 19). 25 5 Reservation Screenshots, Ex. 2 to RJN – ECF No. 21-2 at 8–9. 26 6 Website Screenshots, Ex. 1 to RJN – ECF No. 21-2 at 6. 7 Am. Compl. – ECF No. 18 at 12–14 (¶¶ 41–48). 27 8 Mot. – ECF No. 21. 1 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to 2 raise a claim for relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up). 3 To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations, which 4 when accepted as true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 5 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when 6 the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 7 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a 8 ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 9 unlawfully.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are 10 merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and 11 plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Id. (cleaned up) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 12 If a court dismisses a complaint, it should give leave to amend unless the “pleading could not 13 possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 14 848 F.3d 1161, 1182 (9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). 15 16 ANALYSIS 17 The issue is whether the W Hotel’s reservation website discloses sufficiently the accessible 18 features in the hotel and its guest rooms.10 The weight of authority establishes that it does. 19 Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against disabled individuals in public 20 accommodations. 42 U.S.C. §12182(a). To recover on an ADA discrimination claim, a plaintiff 21 must prove that (1) he or she is disabled within the meaning of the statute, (2) the defendants are 22 private entities that own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation, and (3) the plaintiff 23 was denied public accommodation by the defendants because of his or her disability. Arizona ex 24 rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enters., Inc., 603 F.3d 666, 670 (9th Cir. 2010). 25 26 27 1 A public accommodation’s reservation system — like the W Hotel’s system — must comply 2 with 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e), which requires the hotel to do the following: 3 (i) Modify its policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that individuals with disabilities can make reservations for accessible guest rooms during the same hours 4 and in the same manner as individuals who do not need accessible rooms; [and] 5 (ii) Identify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered through its reservation service in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals 6 with disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs. 7 8 26 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(i)–(ii). 9 Every case that has addressed the sufficiency of a hotel website’s disclosures has held that 10 disclosures like the disclosures here meet the requirements of the C.F.R. The court follows the cases 11 as persuasive. 12 In Love v. Marriott Hotel Services, Mr. Love challenged Marriott Hotel’s nearly identical 13 disclosures on its reservations website: 14 Accessible guest rooms with 32” wide doorways; accessible route from public entrance to accessible guest rooms; alarm clock telephone ringers; bathroom grab bars; bathtub grab bars; 15 bathtub seat; deadbolt locks, lowered; door night guards, lowered’ doors with lever handles; electrical outlets, lowered; flashing door knockers; hearing accessible rooms and/or kits; roll- 16 in shower; shower wand, adjustable; TTY/TTD available; TV with close-captioning; toilet 17 seat at wheelchair height; transfer shower; vanities, accessible; viewports, lowered. 18 No. 20-cv-07137-TSH, 2021 WL 810252, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021) (cleaned up), appeal 19 docketed, No. 21-15458 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2021). The website listed other hotel features such as 20 “accessible self-parking,” “elevators,” and “service animals are welcome.” Id. It identified areas of 21 the hotel, such as the business center and fitness center, as having “accessible routes from the 22 public entrance.” Id. (cleaned up). The website also provided a phone number for guests to call to 23 learn about “physical features” of the hotel’s accessible rooms and areas. Id. at *7. 24 The court held that these disclosures satisfied the C.F.R. Id. at *6–8 (collecting cases). Other 25 cases have reached similar conclusions on similar facts. See, e.g., Arroyo v. JWMFE Anaheim, 26 LLC, No: SACV 21-00014-CJC (KESx), Dkt. 17, at *5–6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2021) (website 27 containing nearly identical information about accessible-room features “more than satisfies 1 Defendant’s obligation under § 36.302(e)(ii));11 Salinas v. Apple Ten Spe Capistrano, Inc., No.: 2 SACV 20-02379-CJC (DFMx), Dkt. 14, at *5–6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021) (defendant’s website, 3 disclosing almost the same features and listing a phone number for more accessibility information, 4 met the requirements of § 36.302(e)(ii));12 Barnes v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., No. 15-cv-01409- 5 HRL, 2017 WL 635474, at *9–10 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) (defendant’s website sufficiently 6 described the hotel’s accessibility by disclosing that “accessible guest rooms have a 32 inch wide 7 opening,” listing accessible areas of the hotel, and describing “Accessible Room Features” for 8 individual room types such as “this room type offers mobility accessible rooms” and “this room 9 type offers accessible rooms with roll in showers”) (cleaned up); accord Arroyo v. AJU Hotel 10 Silicon Valley, LLC, No. 20-cv-08218-JSW, Dkt. 24, at *1–6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2021); Garcia v. 11 Chamber Maid L.P., No. CV 20-11699 (PA) (PDx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49411, at *1–3, 9–14 12 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2021). 13 The website disclosures here are like those in the cases in the preceding paragraph. Mr. Love 14 does not plausibly plead an ADA claim. 15 He nonetheless contends that that public accommodations like the W Hotel must provide 16 additional information about doors, the maneuvering clearance at the bed, and information about 17 the bathroom (such as the toilet, the sink, and the shower and tub).13 He asserts that ADA 18 regulations about beds, toilets, sinks, and showers require a hotel to provide the following 19 information on its website: (1) doorways have at least 32 inches of clearance; (2) beds have at 20 least 30 inches of maneuvering clearance on each side; (3) toilets have grab bars, and the seat is 21 between 17 and 19 inches high; (4) sinks have knee clearance of at least 27 inches high and eight 22 inches deep, plumbing is wrapped, and the mirror’s bottom edge is no more than 40 inches in 23 height; and (5) roll-in showers have grab bars and a detachable hand-held shower spray.14 24

25 11 Arroyo, LLC, Ex. 1 to Suppl. RJN – ECF No. 24-1 at 4–11. 26 12 Salinas, Ex. 3 to Suppl. RJN – ECF No. 24-1 at 14–20. 27 13 Opp’n – ECF No. 23 at 22. 14 Id. at 21–26 (citing 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. D, §§ 404.2.3, 306.3.3, 603.3, 604.4–.5, 606.2,606.5, 1 The Marriott court rejected Mr. Love’s contention that § 36.302(e) requires these disclosures, 2 relying in part on the U.S. Department of Justice’s guidance in an appendix to the regulation: 3 The Department recognizes that a reservations system is not intended to be an accessibility 4 survey. However, specific information concerning accessibility features is essential to travelers with disabilities. Because of the wide variations in the level of accessibility that 5 travelers will encounter, the Department cannot specify what information must be included in every instance. For hotels that were built in compliance with the 1991 standards, it may be 6 sufficient to specify that the hotel is accessible and, for each accessible room, to describe the general type of room (e.g., deluxe executive suite), the size and number of beds (e.g., two 7 queen beds), the type of accessible bathing facility (e.g., roll-in shower), and communications 8 features available in the room (e.g., alarms and visual notification devices). Based on that information, many individuals with disabilities will be comfortable making reservations. 9 10 DOJ Guidance, 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. A (2011); see Marriott, 2021 WL 810252 at *5 (citing id.). 11 The Marriott court identified “key principles” in the DOJ’s commentary, including (1) the 12 reservation system was not intended to be an accessibility survey, and (2) it may be sufficient for 13 accessible rooms to specify the general type of room, the size and number of beds, the bathing 14 facility (e.g., a roll-in shower), and the communication facilities in the room (e.g., alarms and 15 visual-notification systems). 2021 WL 810252 at *5. It gave substantial deference to the DOJ 16 guidance. Id. (citing Kohler v. Presidio Int’l, Inc., 782 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2015)). It held 17 that the Marriott’s website description — virtually the same as the W Hotel’s website description 18 — exceeded the requirements of the DOJ’s ADA guidance and exceeded the requirements that the 19 Barnes court found sufficient. Id. at *6–7. Mr. Love thus did not plausibly plead an ADA claim. 20 The court follows this reasoning as persuasive. 21 First, “websites need not include all potentially relevant accessibility information.” Id. at *6 22 (quotation omitted). The website here contains disclosures that other courts have approved as a 23 sufficient disclosure under the regulation and guidance. Id. (collecting cases); Strojnik v. 24 Orangewood LLC, CV 19-00946 DSF (JCx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11743, at *19–22 (C.D. Cal. 25 Jan. 22, 2020) (website disclosing “wheelchair accessible accommodations” and whether the 26 rooms have accessible bathroom and roll-in showers), aff’d, 829 F. App’x 783, 783 (9th Cir. 27 2020); Strojnik v. 1315 Orange LLC, No. 19cv1991-LAB (JLB), 2019 WL 5535766, at *1–2 (S.D. 1 suggesting a hotel has an obligation to describe to the public the physical layout of its rooms in 2 exhaustive detail without being asked”); Rutherford v. Evans Hotels, LLC, No. 18-CV-435-JLS 3 (MSB), 2020 WL 5257868, at *16 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2020) (the websites “described rooms as 4 being accessible, some even ‘in some detail;’” the plaintiff did not show injury-in-fact; “just 5 because [the plaintiff] would like additional detail does not mean he is entitled to it under Section 6 36.302(e)(1)(ii)”). 7 Second, “the [DOJ] Guidance cited above makes clear that details about a hotel’s accessible 8 features — ‘such as the specific layout of the room and bathroom, shower design, grab-bar locations 9 and other amenities available (e.g. bathtub bench)’ — can be provided ‘once reservations are made’ 10 and do not have to be provided on the reservations website.” Marriott, 2021 WL 810252 at *7 (citing 11 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. A). “This alone shows that the very type of specificity that Love desires in this 12 case is not required on a website.” Id. “This provides further support that websites need not include 13 all potentially relevant information; if a website was required to have all relevant information, 14 individuals would not need to call the hotel to get further information.” Id. (quotation omitted). 15 Third, as the Marriott court said, the DOJ’s enforcement position about the ADA accessibility 16 guidelines supports the conclusion that the website information here complies with the ADA. In a 17 2010 lawsuit involving Hilton Hotels, the DOJ contended that Hilton’s online reservation system 18 did not “accurately reflect the inventory of accessible types of rooms and amenities available at 19 each property.” Id. (quotation omitted). The parties resolved the lawsuit with a consent decree 20 requiring Hilton to ensure that its reservation system “identif[ied] by room type which rooms were 21 accessible, and for each such room type, which of the following accessibility or other features it 22 has: (i) number of beds, (ii) size of bed(s), (iii) roll-in shower or accessible tub, (iv) visual alarms, 23 (v) executive level, (vi) suite, (vii) kitchen/kitchenette, (viii) view, if a particular hotel charges 24 more for a room based on the view.” Id. (cleaned up). “In other words, the DOJ required the same 25 guestroom accessibility information enumerated in its [] Guidance (and all of which is present, as 26 applicable, on the website in the instant case).” 27 In sum, like the Marriott website, the W Hotel’s website complies with the regulations. It 1 entrances, the path of travel to check-in and other services, and the accessible route to the 2 || accessible rooms). /d. It has detailed descriptions of the guest rooms’ accessibility features. /d. It 3 exceeds the requirements of the DOJ guidance. /d. Mr. Love thus does not plausibly plead an 4 |} ADA claim. Because he cannot cure the deficiencies of his claim, the dismissal is with prejudice. 5 Because the court dismisses the federal claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 6 || over the state-law Unruh claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Marriott, 2021 WL 810252 at *8. 7 8 CONCLUSION 9 The court dismisses the ADA claim with prejudice and declines supplemental jurisdiction over 10 || the Unruh Act claim. 11 This disposes of ECF No. 21. IT IS SO ORDERED. E 13 Dated: March 18, 2021 LAE LAUREL BEELER nited States Magistrate Judge 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28